Re: DS: SAW versus APSW versus RFAC

John spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
>      Caution; a big 'however' follows.     
>      
>      HOWEVER, the HMG improved in this manner will be useless on the 
> field of battle.   As a squad or platoon leader I would rather have
> 3 or 4 guys with the 50 cal. long range semi-auto target rifle
> than the HMG that is being discussed.   The reason is simple, my
> 3/4 snipers will deliver more rounds on target in a shorter period
> of time than the HMG.   

Sniper qualified people are rarer than Machine Gunners in my 
limited experience. Plus, I don't believe that your snipers would be 
as capable of suppressing an area. They could kill some people in 
that area but not keep it suppressed like the big ole .50 HMG.	

>      HOWEVER, the reduction in weight coupled with an increase in
> firepower (tri-barrel), will cause the weapon to 'walk' upwards at
> an alarming rate, it is not unlikely that such a weapon would roll
> over if an attempt was made to fire a sustained burst.

Okay, Counterpoint: You aren't including the various effects the 
future could introduce into this equation. The first is that if we 
have grav technology, presumably we could use some form of 
compensator to increase the effective weight of the unit vs. recoil, 
but then disengage this when moving. But that is a super tech 
solution. The easier solution is to conceive of something I was 
telling Los about from GDWs 2300 AD. They have Gauss Rifles and 
Binary Propellant Rifles. In both cases, the rounds (single shot) are 
high V, probably high kick (although with Gauss you are accelerating 
a smaller mass, but since it has to go faster the effect is the same) 
shot. When fired full auto or autoburst, the BP weapon injects less 
propellant and the gauss weapon fires at a lower acceleration. This 
translates to slightly lower impacts, but better controllability for 
autoburst. When you are talking about area suppression, this seems 
desirable. And it seems feasible even for support weapons. 
Additionally, certain hydraulics counter systems could be added or 
integrated or a gas based reaction system could be used to counter 
the effects of recoil. 

>      It is unlikely that a reduction in gun weight will cause a 
> reduction in load for the crew.   The weapon being discussed will
> have an increased rate of fire and therefore the crew will carry
> more ammunition.

That is quite possibly true. If we do ammo tracking, and I plan to do 
some for my troops (which makes when you fire a little more of an 
issue), then this is an issue. As it is now, we sort of assume the 
troopers have as much ammo as they need for a scenario. But you might 
be right. If I'm an HW det commander, and I've got my 4 man MG team, 
and the MG is lighter, I'll just get them to carry more ammo. More 
ammo is always a good thing for support weapons (that's why your 
troopies with rifles usually carry extra ammo in their rucks or in 
ammo boxes for the support weapons.... they eat it fast, but its nice 
to have them around.....) 

> > >Once you go to RFACs, it is not as effective (against infantry,
JTL)
> > > just goes right through.
>      I fear the 50 cal is in this league, as it just goes right
> thru the poor grunt.

I agree but 20mm is even worse. 

>      I have read that germans used the quad 20 flak on the eastern
> front, against russian infantry, with astounding success.

I'm sure. I would guess that that is the case because they had (vs. a 
man portable system) a huge ammo supply, and the fact a round didn't 
mushroom in a guy didn't necessarily matter, if it was ball they were 
firing, as he probably got hit more than once (and a 20mm round even 
not expanding leaves a big hole). Add to that the fact that your AA 
rounds may have been explosive with some type of fusing (which would 
just kill infantry it hit). 

For historical note, the US used their quad .50 in the half tracks to 
devastating effect against infantry. And if you've ever seen an M113 
PIVAD with the 20mm Vulcan cannon fired against a mock convoy or 
infantry section in the woods, you'll realize why they call it the 
buzzsaw and why any infantryman worth his salt wants the AirForce to 
take out the anti air assets....  (In the CF movie "Small Arms in the 
Anti Aircraft Role", I got to watch one of these just literally 
scythe through a bunch of trucks and plywood infantrymen.... just 
terrifying how effective it would be). 

> Sorry, I really don't mean to spoil the fun. 

That's fine. We each have our own thoughts and some even make sense! 
I'm sure that in the future a 2 man portable HMG is possible. You'd 
still want a three or four man team though. 

Tom. 

 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay
Software Specialist
Police Communications Systems
Software Kinetics Ltd.
66 Iber Road, Stittsville
Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2034
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Our Web Page: http://www.sofkin.ca
**************************************************/